Seachem sells two products named matrix. One is a porous pebble type media which serves like live rock. The other is a very good granualted activated carbon. We are discussing the later.
BRS Bulk Premium ROX 0.8 Aquarium Carbon or Seachem Matrix Carbon
- Thread starter Billybatz9
- Start date
Seachem sells two products named matrix. One is a porous pebble type media which serves like live rock. The other is a very good granualted activated carbon. We are discussing the later.
Mrramsey
NEO Reefer
Bah my bad... Thought I saw it on the comparison chart. I went back and read it again but it was comparing large particle vs small particle lignite carbon with the small particle being slightly better performing.
I chose the large particle lignite for my 120. My thoughts were that even after rinsing the amount of dust would be trivial to this size tank. A smaller tank would be a different story. That being said carbon is cheap to experiment with. I hope to have my reactor up and running today.
downbeach
New member
If you watch this video demonstration, you can see why the ROX GAC, although more expensive, is a better value. It also allows you to get the same result or better, with half the amount of media.
Another consideration is that a lignite based GAC has been shown to be a causative agent in the development of HLLE from this article. Due to the fact that the fines that escape into your system seem to be the major culprit in its development, I ran my reactors in the opposite direction and used additional sponges to minimize the movement of the media, even though I used the ROX 0.8 GAC.
Since I had to keep all my support equipment in my cabinet, space has always been an issue with me. So, with using the better GAC (and HC GFO) I was able to get away with using smaller reactor's, or having the room to combine media's into one reactor, i.e. ROX GAC and HC GFO.
Another consideration is that a lignite based GAC has been shown to be a causative agent in the development of HLLE from this article. Due to the fact that the fines that escape into your system seem to be the major culprit in its development, I ran my reactors in the opposite direction and used additional sponges to minimize the movement of the media, even though I used the ROX 0.8 GAC.
Since I had to keep all my support equipment in my cabinet, space has always been an issue with me. So, with using the better GAC (and HC GFO) I was able to get away with using smaller reactor's, or having the room to combine media's into one reactor, i.e. ROX GAC and HC GFO.
I looked at that video and almost bought into it, however, if you use BRS carbon calculator it specifies for a 100gal system it requires 10tbsp of rox and 15 tbsp of lignite which is nowhere near half the amount. The other misleading aspect of the video is the rox's ability to outlast the lignite but again, the change interval as specified in the calculator states 2 weeks for both types of carbon. With rox costing 45.00 per gal and the lignite@ 21.00 a gal I dont see any advantage of the rox over the lignite from a cost perspective.
With all that said, I was unaware of the relationship of HLLE and carbon, not a good thing at all and I would likely base my decision on which carbon to use from this evidence alone. Thanks for that info.
ReefDabs710
New member
Ohh okay thanks
downbeach
New member
I should have qualified that statement better; I went from using Black Diamond GAC(granulated bituminus) to the ROX 0.8, and cut the amount I was using in half. So, it would depend on which type your are comparing it with.
Your system, and what you are trying to accomplish, should dictate the exchange rate. In my case I had a mixed reef, and used it as a safety net, to improve water clarity, and eliminate unwanted odors. Based on the eye and nose test I would get about a month out of a refill, I think that the media will be so covered with bacteria by that time as to render its adsorption capability almost useless.
Dust can be a problem. Lignite needs a good rinsing and grinds up easily.. Rox not much. By weight you get 7lbs of rox vs 4 lbs of regular or lignite per gallon. Whether the extra weight equates to more useable surface area is unknown to me but I use about 30% less rox 8 vs others.
At least one commonly used carbon , Kent reef carbon, had batches contaminated with heavy metals that devastated a number of tanks about a year ago.There are also some carbons sold for aqueous use that are rated for air not water.
So, I tend toward a quality product,defined by a history of issue free use. The 2 at the top of that list ,IMO, are Seachem matrix and Rox8.There are also some carbons sold for aqueous use that are rated for air not water.
At least one commonly used carbon , Kent reef carbon, had batches contaminated with heavy metals that devastated a number of tanks about a year ago.There are also some carbons sold for aqueous use that are rated for air not water.
So, I tend toward a quality product,defined by a history of issue free use. The 2 at the top of that list ,IMO, are Seachem matrix and Rox8.There are also some carbons sold for aqueous use that are rated for air not water.
tommyboynj
New member
I ordered lignite by mistake last year and am just about through a gallon. I'd been using rox prior to that. The fact that it generates much les fines is the main reason I prefer it.
Cakebaker13
New member
So, Would there be a benefit or disadvantage to running more than the recommended amount of carbon? Would it last longer in the tank or waste some of the carbon?
ReefCowboy
New member
No comparison, ran both. matrix is an ok type, nothing special. rox.08 is a very powerful carbon. A fresh batch can strip lots at once if you are not careful. Rox is the real deal
Similar threads
